Both Comcast And Verizon Agree To Pay Millions To Settle Overbilling Claims
from the but-you-can-trust-them dept
The big broadband players keep trying to tell us (and politicians and regulators) how good they are and how much we can trust them. Part of their whole pitch on killing net neutrality is that they'd never do anything to harm consumers. And yet... Just this week, the FTC has sued AT&T for lying to consumers about its "unlimited" plans (just weeks after AT&T was fined for "cramming" bills with unwanted charges). And in the last few days it's also come out that Comcast has agreed to pay $50 million to settle overbilling claims, and Verizon has agreed to pay $64 million to settle overbilling claims. And that was all by Wednesday. There's still more time this week.If these were one-off situations, it would be one thing. But these companies have a fairly long history of shady billing practices, dreadful customer service and similar antics. This is part of the reason why some people are so concerned about the various merger attempts by these companies and why they're all actively seeking to block meaningful regulatory oversight. Bad practices like these can be limited when there's meaningful competition -- but even the FCC is now admitting we don't have that in the broadband market.
This is a real problem.
Broadband access has become such a key part of how we live and how we work. And it's controlled by companies that have a long and detailed history of treating their customers horribly, lumping on bogus fees, overbilling and providing horrible, horrible service. That's not a recipe for a strong and innovative future. It's suggesting some companies are focused on squeezing as much cash as possible out of consumers, while providing a bare minimum level of service and blocking any and all attempts at meaningful competition.
These latest overbilling settlements are just a few small examples of a much larger problem that has been going on for years. It's something that absolutely needs to change. And it won't change by making those companies more powerful and limiting the competition even more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, consumers, overbilling, power
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I haven't seen numbers for Comcast yet, however the damages to Verizon customers was estimated at $156 million. Verizon paid $64 million. By my math, that means Verizon is up about $90 million minus lawyers cost (and since the "winning" side's lawyers got $20 million, Verizon is still definitely ahead).
Until companies have to pay more than what they gained when they break the law, there will never be any incentive for them not to do it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the fines actually hurt, then they might actually work as a deterrent, but as long as they don't even match the gains, yeah, companies will just keep on scamming customers, because they know it's profitable, extremely so, to do so, even when they get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
So the heck with it: it's time to nationalize and run it as a shared, vital national resource -- not unlike the highway system. (Can you imagine what it'd be like to drive from Chicago to Pittsburgh if Verizon and Comcast operated the roads? Yipes.) Take over the existing physical plant. Create jobs laying fiber (it's been done before, and it worked, e.g. WPA, CCC). Provide a level playing field at some network layer -- maybe layer 2, maybe layer 3 -- and invite ISPs to compete for customers on that base, the same way that trucking companies compete for freight.
Yes, this will suck, because it will be fraught with government bureaucracy and waste and all the other things that we've come to associate with huge public works projects. But I submit that it cannot possibly suck more than what we have right now, which is national network service that is embarrassingly slow, unreliable, and increasingly manipulated. (See, for example, just in the last week, What is Comcast/Xfinity WiFi Code Injection Doing? and Verizons Perma-Cookie Is a Privacy-Killing Machine. Not to mention all the other crap they've done/are doing/will do.)
The duopoly has had its chance to provide the nation with best-in-the-world broadband services. It has failed miserably for decades and it's actively trying to fail harder. We can't afford to have the nation where the Internet was invented become the place where it starved to death because of corporate greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
I'm pretty sure the first project they started on would be routing all of the fiber connections through the NSA data center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
Security/privacy models built on the presumption that the infrastructure is itself secure and private are doomed...in the same way that security/privacy models built on the presumption that highways are secure and private are doomed. (Anyone can watch you drive by. Anyone can drive along right behind you. And so on.)
So I see this as a NOOP in terms of security/privacy: it simply doesn't matter who owns/operates the cable/fiber/etc. plant, it's going to be tapped to the extend possible as soon as possible as much as possible anyway.
So if we're going to have to put up with that, and engineer security/privacy around it, we should at least get 10Mbps for $25/month in the bargain. Which is, by the way, about 18X better performance/price ratio than I have at the moment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
I can easily imagine this. You'd have to pay a steep base per mile rate for the privilege, you'd pay all those sneaky little charges and service fees for the privilege of paying them money, you'd have to have you car outfitted with a GPS tracker, and all but one lane of the freeway would be allowed to degrade to so you can't safely go highway speeds on it. But never fear, because for a steep surcharge you'd be allowed to use their well-maintained fast lane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
Everyone gets the fast lane, for an extra charge you get to use the "hyperspeed" lane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
We already have this. They're called toll roads. And some areas have toll lanes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's time to nationalize the infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the politicians are unwilling to demand net neutrality for internet (and enforce it), they should be willing to sell the road network. I know some people who would love to buy large parts of the road network...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the 100 Billion they got is gone?
Thank god you don't have fiber everywhere, what would you have bought for 100 Billion Dollars in Direct subsidies ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Faith. Bad Business
One of the key defenses we advise them they have is...trust. Yes, trust. It turns out many people dislike their carrier, but still trust them. Doubt me? Consider this: How many people give telcos their credit card for their monthly bills? So this is demonstrated proof of a certain level of trust.
As Apple has shown with the iTunes store, then the App Store; Or has Amazon has shown with OneClick: A credit card on file, plus some trust can pay off in lower friction sales, and more revenue.
But here they are, eroding consumer trust at every opportunity. It saddens me, both because we are being ripped off, but also because I see companies frittering away one of their few remaining competitive advantages.
If continued, the trust they enjoy will only be at the level of "the devil you know"...which is just a notch above Nigerian 419 scammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Faith. Bad Business
That's not an example of trust in the telcos. That's an example of trusting in the laws that provide you additional consumer protection when you use credit cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Faith. Bad Business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I was to take money from them under false pretenses, I would in Jail so fast it is not funny.
This is just more corruption at play in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is a Scam is not a Scam? When its a business model.
1. Big Biz does a scam on the Public.
2. Big Biz pulls in a few billion from the scam.
3. Big Biz gets caught, usually because they got careless.
4. Big Guv takes them to court for their crime.
5. Big Guv fines Big Biz a few million bux.
6. Big Guv keeps the Vigorish and Big Biz walks.
7. The Public remains screwed out of the billions and Big Biz walks away with the lion's share of their scam proceeds and Big Guv gets a nice chunk of valuta for doing absolutely nothing.
Repeat from 1.
I would call this a business model.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]